Here's why I'd argue that it's 'writing you don't like' rather than 'bad writing'- Fiona's failings are thematically consistent with the themes and foilibilities of mages: that they are people, and that as people they aren't just capable of being the innocents in a situation (the general role of the 'good mages' in the previous games), but that they'd have the same flaws, and desires, and failings, of people as well.
The Mage Rebellion was always a movement without direction- never had a plan of the 'how' or 'what next'- and the war was the natural, even desired, consequence of that. The mages rejected the idea of oversight and responsibility for others, took it into their own hands- and, like ill-prepared people everywhere, found it wasn't so easy when they hadn't prepared for it. (Self)Righteousness and cries of FREEEEDOM and even the ability to fling fireballs weren't enough- and the flipside of being self-responsible when things are going well is that you're still responsible when things go bad. Which has always been the question, and the fear, of mages- what will they do when things aren't going well? There's any number of reasons mages might be stressed or need an edge, but the Mage Freedom argument generally boils down to 'eh, trust us, we won't do anything desperate.'
It's no accident that Fiona's decision to submit to servitude is the epitome of 'trading freedom for security,' a major theme of the conflict, especially in a game built around 'restoring order.' It's not supposed to be a well-reasoned decision- Fiona acts out of fear as much as anything- but that's the point- that mages, even the free sort, can be tricked and afraid of exagerated threats and become desperate. Just like regular people, because they are people, and that's the tragedy of it all.
The issue with the mages selling themselves and their ideals out for security isn't that the Inquisition was an obvious alternative (it was still the early game- but Fiona would have tried if not pre-empted). It's that Fiona and the surviving mages went along with Alexius because they were not, in the end, moral supermen. They were people- fearful, desperate people, but still just people- and fear drives people to desperate, stupid things.
You can argue that they shouldn't ever have to be afraid in the first place... but that's the sort of viewpoint that says people shouldn't change themselves to protect themselves against the world, because the world should change to not harm them. It's an idealistic viewpoint that is going to be frequently disappointed.
And all of this actually does make for a very interesting take on the subject of the mage rebellion if the Herald allies with them and Leliana becomes Divine, something of a subversion of "history is written by the victors." Because the rebellion itself was not victorious; they were regular people, they screwed up their plans, bad decisions were made... but the reason they wind up winning in this scenario is because people outside the rebellion believed in them and their cause. The mages achieve freedom not through force of arms or clever strategy, but through moral authority and resonance.
And all this actually ties in very nicely and thematically with Leliana's conception of an unconditionally loving Maker and Andraste, where their purported successors act in the same manner.
Retour en haut
